Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pooja Chawala And Others vs Pradeep Kumar And Others on 19 March, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2662 of 2011
Appellant :- Smt. Pooja Chawala And Others
Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- D.K. Singh,Rohan Gupta
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 13.04.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saharanpur in Claim Case No.59 of 2008.
Ms. Kriti Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, in her turn, submits that learned Tribunal has erred in making one third deduction whereas looking to the number of dependents to be 5, it should have been one fourth. Similarly, interest has been awarded @ 6% which should have been much higher looking to the rate of interest as were prevalent on the date of the accident. It is further submitted that no amount has been awarded under the head of future prospects and meagre amounts have been awarded under the head of non pecuniary compensation.
Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for Insurance Company, in his turn, submits that Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17, whereas, looking to the fact that age of the deceased has been accepted to be between 30-35 years. It is further submitted that admittedly deceased was having Radio and T.V. Repairing Center in his name and since that T.V. repairing centre will still exist and will continue to be a source of earning for the claimants. Therefore, placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3696, it is submitted that at best that part of income can be considered which claimants will be required to deploy to get the shop going.
After hearing learned counsel for the parting and going through the available documents and the case law referred by rival parties, this Court is of the opinion that parents of the deceased cannot be said to be dependent in absence of any other cogent evidence. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly considered wife and two children of the deceased to be his dependent and has rightly deducted one third of the income as living expenses of the deceased in place of one fourth as has been suggested by Ms. Kriti Gupta, learned counsel for appellant.
As far as rate of interest is concerned, it is true that U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 prescribes a rate of interest of 7% and, therefore, Tribunal should have awarded interest @ 7% in place of 6%. There is substance in the argument pertaining to the future prospects and non pecuniary compensation which will be dealt a little later.
As far as submissions made by Sri Rahul Sahai are concerned, his first argument that multiplier of 16 will be applicable, is accepted as it is supported with case law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and other vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. However, the second argument that no straight jacket formula can be applied where estate of the deceased is still available to be devolved upon the legal heirs and legal heirs are in a position to reap benefit of such estate is concerned, this argument is bereft of merit, inasmuch as, facts of the case of Jasbir Kaur (supra) are different from the present case. In case of Jasbir Kaur (supra), the estate which was devolved on the claimants, was agricultural land whereas in the present case, the estate which may be devolved upon the legal heirs is a shop of radio and t.v. mechanic. Work of radio and t.v. mechanic is a specialized skilled job which can be done by only a person duly trained in this skill and cannot be carried out by employing anybody or everybody. Besides this, capacity of the legal heirs to manage and run the shop under the fact and circumstances where there bread earner has lost life are different from the devolvment of agricultural land, which if holding is sufficient, is usually tilled with the help of labourers which can still be tilled with the help of labourers by paying them their wages.
At this stage, learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that specific reference made to paragraph 8 of the judgment of Jasbir Kaur (supra), wherein, it has been held that "the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. In view of such facts, as in the present case, agricultural income is not the source, therefore, ratio of this judgment is prima facie distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Learned Tribunal has accepted income of the deceased as Rs.69,933/- (sixty nine thousand nine hundred thirty three) after deductions. As admittedly, deceased was aged between 30-35 years, 40% is to be added towards future prospects in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. When multiplier of 16 is applied, then total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs.15,66,499/- (fifteen lakhs sixty six thousand four hundred ninety nine), over and above which, claimants are entitled a sum of Rs.70,000/- (seventy thousand) under the head of non pecuniary compensation taking total compensation to Rs.16,36,499/- (sixteen lakhs thirty six thousand four hundred ninety nine) against a sum of Rs.12,01,000/- (twelve lakhs one thousand) awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, there will be enhancement to the tune of Rs.4,35,499/- (four lakhs thirty five thousand four hundred ninety nine). This enhanced amount and the original amount awarded by learned Tribunal shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition.
In above terms, appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021
Ravi/-
